• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

June 3, 2018 — Greg Bishop



pigfarmer

Paranormal Maven
#4
Only part way through and was listening to Greg speak about the differences between the 'other' and ‘nuts & bolts ‘hypothesis. I know I am not alone here in that I was a kid in the ‘70s and ate this stuff up and am still hanging around with interest. Here we are decades later and the best we seem to be able to do is create more complicated speculation.

I belong to other completely unrelated forums and yet see similarities across them that never cease to amaze me; the common thread being human psychology and is the point of this post. For example, pick the classic car forum of your choice and make your first post be “my cam is 180 degrees out” or “I like ethanol gasoline and it hurts nothing” and then wait about three seconds. Interestingly I DO have exactly the tools needed to address any questions along those lines and yet despite the ability to physically prove, measure and repeat some of the points being debated there will still be endless gum flapping and emotional responses.

Nuts & Bolts or ‘co-creation’ – OK fine. It’s not like I can run downstairs into my garage and check the settings on my warp drive to validate a point I am making in a forum. I’ve also spent a lot of time down there ‘meditating’ and staring at various projects and rather than change the nature of what I’m working on through intense observation all that usually happens is I get loaded and slide off my stool.

I’m simply comparing some of what I’ve heard on this show and in the forums to others from the 30,000 foot p.o.v of someone who isn’t quite as invested in all this but has had a lifelong interest. Despite being on dissimilar topics in unrelated forums I am struck by the similarities and can’t help but think that human nature is the one real thread that runs through all these topics.

I’m not sure my opinion really fits in any particular box; 99.9% of what is reported – UFOs, ghosts, cryptids – is just a facet of our psychology and if we became extinct tomorrow the cockroaches wouldn’t be bothered by Sasquatch, ghosts, Mothman or any of that. I think it is possible we might get a last fly by from ET to see why Facebook stopped working but then they would zip off and there wouldn’t be anyone left to speculate whether the craft had nuts and bolts or was the Zeta Retiucli version of a Ford Tulpa that simply disappears when they return to their rental lot.

Debating hypothesis is fine and well and is the fodder of these podcasts but it just seems to be creating unhelpful artificial borders.
 
#5
Debating hypothesis is fine and well and is the fodder of these podcasts but it just seems to be creating unhelpful artificial borders.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to the show. My point is that we have to look at the artificial borders we have set up and ask ourselves what lies behind these borders. The closest we can get is an individual experience and reaction, which is unique to each person. I think an important "artificial border" is language and how we process things we don't expect. How do we discuss the unfamiliar in familiar terms? I don't think there is any simple answer except personal experience, which doesn't do organized study much good. As someone who has never had a close encounter, these are issues which seem important to me.
 
#8
This was a really wonderful and engaging show – Greg is an excellent guest and has lots of intriguing stories and a wealth of knowledge about many of the subjects that we discuss here. I like him – he’s a very intelligent and candid guy.

So I feel kinda bad to point this out, but look at what happened when I asked this question:

Q: Please ask Greg, because I'd like to know in the clearest and simplest terms possible: "how does the co-creation hypothesis work?"

A: No matter what I say he’s gonna come up with something to counter it. So, it’s almost impossible, but to make it simple - and I’m not saying that I dislike Thomas Morrison or anything like that, I think he’s got – he’s made some great points. And the fact that people think: “well, these people are throwing out the ETH,” like, no we’re not – it’s still valid and it’s still on the table. It’s just that we’re interested in other things.

We’re interested in how it affects people, how it affects societies, how it affects people’s psychology. But simplest form I can say for co-creation is: we have to look at how we look at things to be able to tell what some unknown thing might be. And what we might be doing to…what noise we might be adding to the signal coming from whatever external stimulus happens.

I don’t know what the stimulus is and I think we make assumptions about that stimulus. And so my personal way to deal with this, my personal – what’s the word, my exercise?...at this moment is not to assign meaning to whatever the ufo thing is, and just to look at how it’s affecting people and how our minds process it. It’s not to throw out the ETH – this might be the source; there might be an ETH source that is making us do this – that is making us see these things that we are witnessing, and it’s 100% external reality as we understand it or as most people understand it through high school physics, or whatever.

But I’m interested in seeing what is beyond that, what – if the instrument that we detect ufos for most of the time is us, how does that instrument work? That would be the other kind of side of the co-creation. And I don’t know what that is yet. But I just want to explore it.

I’ve said what I’ve said about it in that essay – I don’t know if he’s read the essay, if he reads the essay in Reframing the Debate, then I don’t think I’d have to say any of this stuff, because I think I explain it pretty thoroughly – at least where I’m at – in that essay, “UFOs and the Co-Creation Hypothesis.”


What? Honestly when I heard this answer I had a laugh a little bit, because this is what always happens when I ask somebody to explain the co-creation hypothesis. Burnt State did the same thing in the ETH thread: he didn’t explain it, in any kind of intelligible way, and then he told me to read the essay. But I’m not going to buy the book if nobody can explain to me what it’s about. Apparently nobody can explain it. So I don’t think that anyone can even call it a hypothesis; it’s more like a notion, i.e. “something about the way that we perceive something too weird for us to process for some reason, makes us see what we expect to see as a result of our cultural programming/conditioning, but we don’t know what that something is in the first place and we’re not presenting any cogent alternative possibilities for consideration, so whatever – make of it what you will.”

Do you see the problem there? It’s not an alternative explanation. It’s merely a question – a line of inquiry, or rather, the intent to pursue a line of inquiry. He did say that the source of this mental processing glitch that makes us see a ufo could be extraterrestrial in origin (which would be a form of ETH explanation), or it could be “something else.” But “something else” isn’t an alternative explanation – it’s an open question. So we’re left with “ETH, or not-ETH?” That is the question!

It’s not an answer, or even an alternative explanation. It’s a place-holder for an alternative explanation that hasn’t been offered. Y’know what I mean?

Look – maybe I’m coming off as a tough customer here: I don’t mean to be. Like I’ve said many times before, I think the ETH is clearly the best available explanation to date for the bulk of the truly anomalous AAV sighting reports…but it’s a big and weird universe and all kinds of other stuff could be going on. In some cases I’m sure that Greg is on the right track: our senses are somewhat fallible and our brains are a largely unexplored territory, and perhaps things like ghost sightings and some ufo sightings and soforth, are some kind of weird glitch in our neural networks (either naturally occurring like the sense of déjà-vu, or triggered by some weird external phenomenon that messes with our brains somehow). All kinds of things are possible, and as Murray Gell-Mann loved to say “everything not forbidden is compulsory.”

But honestly I think it’s crazy to suggest that when a group of people see a large metallic craft in the sky that levitates and/or exhibits dramatic flight capabilities, which are sometimes confirmed by radar traces, that this is some kind of hallucination or mirage or mass delusion or as-yet-unexplained psychological phenomenon. Because people are subjected to all kinds of intense stresses and weird misperceptions all of the time, and we see no evidence of humans having wild illusory perceptions that totally deceive them, even in groups. And if we are seeing some kind of illusion, it’s far more credible to suggest that we’re seeing some kind of technologically produced camouflage – perhaps an alien craft can wrap itself in a convincing 3D projection that just so happens to look like what we’d expect an alien craft to look like.

But I think it’s more rational to simply apply Occam’s razor and say “that looks like an alien craft because that’s what it is.” You have to start somewhere. And since the ETH is the simplest available explanation (and we don’t even have a cogent explanation of the co-creation hypothesis yet), then that’s the best working hypothesis on the table.

I'm not saying that's all that's going on - we humans have just barely cracked open our eyelids to this vast universe of as-yet-unimagined possibilities. But I think it would be absolutely shocking if we weren't being visited by alien technology from time to time; that has to be a big piece of the puzzle. And if that's too mundane for the minds of the long-time ufo philosophers out there, I think it's also quite possible that some extremely next-level stuff is also going on from time to time (but with far less frequency), like perhaps some race of incomprehensibly advanced intelligent beings from halfway across the universe sending thought projection beams of some kind to this planet in search of other highly advanced beings that can telepathically communicate with them on their level...and leaving a few of our people totally bewildered and dazed with imponderably weird visions in their heads as a result.

So while the rest of us strive to understand the revolutionary interstellar field propulsion system employed by the majority of AAVs that are physical and often show up on radar (so we too can traverse the stars one day), you guys can go ahead and work on a model for hyperdimensional telepathic thought projection, because that would be really cool to play with too :)

PS - I never meant to imply that Greg rejects the ETH; he's always been consummately open-minded about this subject. But I stand by my assessment that The Paracast habitually mocks the ETH and everyone who favors it. Anyone who listens to the show knows this. I keep arguing about it on the forums because I think it's grossly unwarranted to routinely characterize ETH advocates as simple-minded mouth-breathers who lack the expanse of mind to favor vastly less cogent theories about all of this. And frankly as a witness of these things I find it insulting when people who weren't there try to tell me what I did (or in this case, didn't) see with my own eyes.
 
Last edited:

pigfarmer

Paranormal Maven
#9
Thank you for taking the time to listen to the show. My point is that we have to look at the artificial borders we have set up and ask ourselves what lies behind these borders. The closest we can get is an individual experience and reaction, which is unique to each person. I think an important "artificial border" is language and how we process things we don't expect. How do we discuss the unfamiliar in familiar terms? I don't think there is any simple answer except personal experience, which doesn't do organized study much good. As someone who has never had a close encounter, these are issues which seem important to me.
A matter of perspective.

I have been looking for a short clip of Andrew Dice Clay's version of Aesop's The Scorpion and the Frog but no doubt fortunate for all concerned that I couldn't find one. Right out of the box human beings do all sorts of nasty things; lie, prevaricate, outright make **** up for a variety of reasons, some consciously and others not. All it takes for these behaviors to make themselves evident is to have two people and time. Why we behave the way they do isn't such a mystery to me. "Because I'm a scorpion, you d*** !!" to paraphrase ADC.

Complex theories are fine grist for the social mill as long as they don't become polarizing, but of course ALL theories are polarizing in this arena. In fact most social arenas find reasons to polarize no matter what topic they relate to - take my mother-in-law's mahjong game. Vicious, deadly predators in that lot... This is why I mentioned other hobbies in my initial pose - even on topics which are 100% tangible and accessible there are ridiculously heated dustups.

The two ideas going back and forth like a tennis ball really aren't new and I am slightly confused as to why right now, 2018, exactly why they have taken on any different sense of urgency. I am a very direct, practical person that still really wants to believe there is something more to this than our own foibles but after several decades of watching the monkey show I have my doubts.

High time someone produces a corpse - ET, Sasquatch, my dead grandmother in an electronic box, whatever. We need an explanation you can point to that your grandfather could understand in less than two sentences.
 
#15
Greg discussed the co-creation hypothesis at the Esotericon a couple of weeks ago. I honestly don't see how anyone doesn't understand what he's talking about - it's pretty straightforward. Anyway, you can listen to his lecture here.
That was an excellent lecture – lots of valid points in there, and it was well-organized. And it helped me understand the problem with this whole debate.

The co-creation hypothesis is not an alternative hypothesis to the ETH at all. But people on The Paracast have routinely been talking about it as if it’s an alternative hypothesis to the ETH (perhaps because they both have the word “hypothesis” in their names). Instead, it’s primarily a look into perceptual psychology in general. Ultimately it may have little if anything to do with the ufo sighting experience, but rather all perceptual experiences in general, even the most mundane ones, such as the difference between the event of brushing your teeth this morning vs. your memory of the process.

So the co-creation hypothesis is more like a tool kit – it can and probably should be applied to any investigative and analytical effort involving the human perception of experiences – everything from witness testimony at criminal trials to sightings of meteors and anything else.

The ETH and the co-creation hypothesis are not competing concepts after all, it turns out. So people need to stop presenting it as an alternative to the ETH. It’s no more an alternative explanation to the ETH than the field of psychology, or biology.

It’s certainly an interesting direction of study and research, but I don’t see why it’s any more relevant to the area of ufo sightings than, for example, the areas of human romance or international politics or the study of the human recollection of car crashes.

Briefly put, that leaves us with the ETH, or no explanation at all. We might still consider other ideas like “the interdimensional hypothesis,” but until somebody can explain how that works in terms of actual credible physics, then I think that idea is still too vague and ill-defined to rise to the level of a hypothesis. One needs to have an explanation of how something can be physically viable, before it can reach the level of stature of a valid and rational scientific hypothesis.

In fact I don’t really see how the co-creation hypothesis really applies to the kind of sighting that I’ve had, and which is the focus of my interest. I saw a pair of bright and/or reflective objects zig-zagging across the daytime sky in perfect formation, at high speed, standing with four of the other kids in my neighborhood. And we all offered our ideas of what we might be seeing out loud; “Helicopter?” “No, that’s not a helicopter, they can't move that fast.” “Plane?” “No, planes can’t zig-zag like that.” We ran out of ideas pretty fast. And I still have no idea what we saw that day – could’ve been some super-advanced human technology, or some wildly improbable natural phenomenon, but frankly the best working hypothesis that I can see is the ETH. So I favor that explanation, in lieu of new information that may come to light someday.

Similarly, in this talk Greg described his sighting of some bizarre shiny black object hanging in the air at an airport, with four pointy pencil-like shapes. That’s what he saw – he doesn’t question that, and neither do I. But he doesn’t know what it was, and neither do I. But based on everything that I know about human technology, and everything that we now know about the likelihood of intelligent life in this galaxy and universe at large, I tend to favor an ETH explanation.

And the co-creation hypothesis only deals with the fidelity of perception and memory, so it doesn’t offer an alternative explanation. But it might raise questions about things like the size and distance of the object, and our limited perceptions of light frequencies, or the sequence and timing of the sighting event.

That brings us to the issue of probability. Our culture seems to be lagging behind the scientific data, when it comes to the subject of warm and potentially living Earth-like worlds in the universe - apparently culture has some kind of cognitive inertia. Because the idea of extraterrestrial life, or even intelligent extraterrestrial life with interstellar spaceflight capability, used to seem improbable before we had the results of the Kepler Mission, and before we knew about the ubiquity of water and amino acids throughout the universe, and before we understood the dynamical evolution of planetary systems and planetary composition. Now all of that has changed. Today, we know that there are over 40 billion warm Earth-like worlds in our galaxy alone, and over 40 billion trillion warm Earth-like worlds in the observable universe alone (which is in turn only a speck of the entire universe), moving through stellar systems chock full of water and the building blocks of life (and we now know that life appeared on the Earth pretty much as soon as the Earth cooled down enough to support carbon-based life). So now the odds are extremely favorable to a model of the universe that's teeming with life, and we have no reason left to presume that it's at all rare. The only remaining question is the prevalence of intelligent life, and even on that question we have no logical reason to presume that the evolution of intelligent life is extremely rare. Seventy years ago it wasn't totally unreasonable to wonder if there were any other intelligent civilizations out there in the universe. But today, the most reasonable scenario appears to describe our galaxy as a system lushly populated with organic life, and probably thousands or more planets inhabited by technological civilizations, most of which are probably many millions or even billions of years ahead of us, because most of the star systems in our galaxy are older than ours:

"We found that most potentially habitable star systems are much older than the Sun and located farther from the galactic centre. By comparing the ages of these systems we estimated that ~77% of potentially habitable star systems are on average ~3.13 billion years older than the Sun. This suggests that any intelligent life in the Galaxy is likely to be incredibly more advanced than we are assuming that they have evolved under similar timescales than we have."
"The Age Distribution of Potential Intelligent Life in the Milky Way," Daniel Legassick, 2015

In light of these newly discovered facts, it would be a far greater mystery if our planet weren't being visited by alien civilizations from time to time. Fermi was perfectly correct to ask the question "Where is everybody?" He should've looked up, because the answer appears to be: "all around us."

Two final points of interest – it’s true that most people seem to forget strange experiences. I’ve run across this twice in my life, and it’s both frustrating and fascinating. I would love to know why I remember strange events in life, and why others forget them. Perhaps it’s because I think of life’s most mysterious and anomalous experiences as among the most precious treasures in life, because they represent an opportunity to learn something new, and potentially very exciting, whereas others may see them as impractical distractions from the daily work of surviving and navigating the routines of life.

And lastly, awhile back I suggested on the forums that ghost hunters should wear portable biosensing apparatuses so they become the detection instrument at haunted locations. Apparently I wasn’t the first person to think of that, which is disappointing. But I’m surprised and bewildered that somebody like Paul Kimball hasn’t done this (as far as I know, anyway). Because the one thing we can sure about with ghost experiences, is that human beings experience them. And I recall Dr. Barry Taff saying that things like cold spots don’t show up on temperature gauges. But we feel them. So we should use our technology to monitor our bodies (and even our brains, if possible) as we have these kinds of experiences, so we can measure these experiences indirectly via the human sensing instrument, which we know is sensitive to all the known haunting sensations and perceptions. Perhaps we'll discover that some noncorporeal form of life (if that's even possible) or some kind of unidentified physical field, is directly interacting with our limbic system.
 
Last edited:
#16
I will be succinct this time.

Tom M is right: The "co-creation hypothesis" is more like a method of inquiry. I believe that I am using the word "hypothesis" relatively correctly. I attempt to explain (or explain away) nothing, and I don't think I ever said that it was an alternative to the ETH, or that it was better, or whatever. Did anyone actually read my essay in "Reframing the Debate?"

Webster online says "A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true." I am not sure how to test for the source of the phenomenon, but we can examine the results of tests of perception and memory. I hesitate to call it a "theory," since that requires much more evidence.

My idea of co-creation is: It has been proven repeatedly that our senses and memories can be inaccurate. Sometimes wildly so, especially in a startling or traumatic situation. This calls the accuracy of witness recall into question. It also calls into question the nature of the stimulus that caused the event and what that might be.

I have NEVER said that people did not see what they report and remember seeing. My idea is that, since we can't even remember some "normal" things accurately, how can we be sure of the accuracy of something that cannot be examined on demand?

The ETH is still a viable and attractive idea. I am more interested in other things, however. A viable hypothesis may be a combination of aliens and co-creation.

P.S. Someone posted at Radio Misterioso under the Tom Morrison name asking why I am still appearing on the Paracast. He says his real name is "Brian." I can provide more info if you like.
 
Last edited:

S.R.L.

Paranormal Adept
#17
Hmm … there’s been a Supra Troll rampaging with Morrison in its crosshairs. So far, it’s managed to elude the NSA, NRA, FBI, Interpol, and Scotland Yard. Word on the street has it residing up in Trump Tower, or, perhaps down in the sewers of London, disguised as a fatberg.
 
#18
I will be succinct this time.

Tom M is right: The "co-creation hypothesis" is more like a method of inquiry.
The lecture that you gave (linked above) seems to suggest that the co-creation hypothesis is closely related to the fascinating field of perceptual psychology: the study and understanding of sense perception and cognition.

As such, I tend to see it more as a field of scientific inquiry, rather than a hypothesis. Typically a hypothesis is a proposed solution offered to solve a specific problem, rather than a field of study.

I attempt to explain (or explain away) nothing, and I don't think I ever said that it was an alternative to the ETH, or that it was better, or whatever.
It took me awhile to sort this out, because we’ve been hearing on the show a false dichotomy, where the listener is given a choice: “does one favor the ETH, or the co-creation hypothesis?” But now I see that they aren't opposing perspectives at all, and in fact it’s probably crucial to develop our understanding of the co-creation process so we can better assess the distinction between the “real” vs. the “interpretative” aspects of ufo sightings (and lots of other experiences as well).

Did anyone actually read my essay in "Reframing the Debate?"
I haven’t yet, but now that I have a better idea of what you’re talking about, I’m going to buy the book to read your essay.

I am not sure how to test for the source of the phenomenon, but we can examine the results of tests of perception and memory.
I’m a passionate advocate for the instrumentalist approach to ufo study like Chris’ San Luis Valley Camera/Observatory Project – because we need much more and far better empirical evidence for scientific analysis. And it will be fascinating when we can have both that data, and the independent eyewitness reports, so we can compare the two and learn more about the accuracies and inaccuracies of witness perception, cognition and interpretation.

But honestly I would think there’s already a lot of work being done in that area among academic psychologists. Because everyone from police officers to psychiatrists to parents and jurors could benefit from a better understanding of the fidelity of human perception and how and where it tends to fail.

Unfortunately, this document leaked by Edward Snowden reveals that modern intelligence agencies have developed a highly sophisticated understanding of this whole field, which draws on everything from the study of perception and psychology to sociology to communications technology and biology and all kinds of other specialties. And they’re using that knowledge to conduct covert online psychological operations. If you haven’t seen it yet, I think you’ll find it fascinating and rife with intriguing leads for further study:
https://edwardsnowden.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf

My idea of co-creation is: It has been proven repeatedly that our senses and memories can be inaccurate. Sometimes wildly so, especially in a startling or traumatic situation. This calls the accuracy of witness recall into question. It also calls into question the nature of the stimulus that caused the event and what that might be.
Yeah but this is exactly why we need to develop this area into a useful toolkit: some witness reports are going to be right on the money (corresponding very well to the data that an instrument like a camera or a microphone would record of the event) while others are going to be fraught with a mix of objective and subjective perceptions.

In cases like mine, where we all saw these things at a distance and reacted with simple curiosity, I think the perception and the objective reality were probably pretty close. But I’ve often considered how, even after years of interest in this subject, I would be terrified beyond words if some small alien being floated into my living room at some random moment – and we already know that when confronted with real existential terror, perceptions become very subjective, jumbled, and sometimes even blacked out of memory entirely.

So until we have a better, quantified and qualified toolkit to help us estimate the likely level of perceptual distortion in any given scenario, I’ll generally assume that sightings of metallic or luminous or other exotic craft at a distance, are probably quite accurate, whereas close encounters with landed craft and interactions with evidently alien creatures are going to be more complex and difficult to assess and evaluate.

I have NEVER said that people did not see what they report and remember seeing.
Yeah, what happened is that on The Paracast your work has gotten mixed up with that viewpoint, to the extent that I thought they were two in the same idea.

My idea is that, since we can't even remember some "normal" things accurately, how can we be sure of the accuracy of something that cannot be examined on demand?
Well like I said, I think there’s a spectrum of accuracy here. Typical reports of lights and objects in the sky are probably predominantly accurate, whereas people in fear for their lives are more likely to exhibit powerful subjective disparities. And it’s also quite possible that close encounter experiences could involve other factors of technological or neurological interference of some kind, which may be used by intelligent beings to control a situation for defensive purposes, or to conduct some kind of psychological experiment or operation.

The ETH is still a viable and attractive idea. I am more interested in other things, however. A viable hypothesis may be a combination of aliens and co-creation.
That is a fascinating area of inquiry, the possible overlap between the two. I wonder how much of the perceptual distortion is physiological in nature, and how much could be intentional, or at least unavoidable. Sometimes I think about what a wild animal in the forest would experience when encountering a modern human being for the first time, for example; shock, confusion, scrambled memory of the event, stuff like that. A modern human would probably find an encounter with a being a billion years ahead of us on the evolutionary timescale to be at least as bewildering and psychedelic. Especially since a common feature of these proximal reports seems to be telepathic/psychic kinds of communication or at least interactions.

P.S. Someone posted at Radio Misterioso under the Tom Morrison name asking why I am still appearing on the Paracast. He says his real name is "Brian." I can provide more info if you like.
Yeah that’s the stalker/secret admirer/troll that I picked up here at The Paracast a few months ago – a really vile and morally repugnant little sociopath, that one. He’s been messaging and commenting all over the paranormal community using my name to stir up drama. I doubt there’s anything we can do about it; apparently he uses a proxy server to mask his IP address, and a small army of people on the paranormal types of forums have been trying to track him down to press charges for years, because what he’s doing is illegal in most states. I’d really appreciate it if you’d just delete any posts under my name; it’s a drag to have people thinking that I’m some kind of retarded shit-talking troll. You should ban him and block him whenever he raises his head; he’s a deeply disturbed and totally worthless individual. We think he’s the infamous “Waller Joel” troll who’s been impersonating people like Walter Bosley and renowned skeptic Michael Shermer for years, and he'll often use multiple fake accounts to simulate a controversy - he'll even argue with himself in a thread to keep it looking active.

Hmm … there’s been a Supra Troll rampaging with Morrison in its crosshairs. So far, it’s managed to elude the NSA, NRA, FBI, Interpol, and Scotland Yard. Word on the street has it residing up in Trump Tower, or, perhaps down in the sewers of London, disguised as a fatberg.
Haha – that’s the best laugh I’ve had in months; quality post, S.R.I.. And I learned a new word today, “fatberg,” lol =D
 
Last edited:

MikeJ

Paranormal Novice
#20
Our neurological structuring and so called external happenings co create. Our perceptions, clearly not registering the fullness of what is, are sharp enough for us to survive, and to be creative in manifesting concrete things.

Witness testimony can be problematic but, frankly speaking, given the extensive body of ce3 and ce4 reports, it seems clear that we have a wide variety of ET civilizations present here.
 

Top